Davis Esther L, McCaffery Kirsten, Mullan Barbara, Juraskova Ilona
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2742-52. doi: 10.1111/hex.12248. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
Decision aids (DAs) are non-directive communication tools that help patients make value-consistent health-care decisions. However, most DAs have been developed without an explicit theoretical framework, resulting in a lack of understanding of how DAs achieve outcomes.
To investigate the effect of promoting affective vs. deliberative processing on DA effectiveness based on dual-process theory.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and forty-eight female university students participated in a randomized controlled experiment with three conditions: emotion-focused, information-focused and control. Preference-value consistency, knowledge, decisional conflict and satisfaction were compared across the conditions using planned contrast analyses.
The intervention comprised two different DAs and instructional manipulations. The emotion-focused condition received a modified DA with affective content and instructions to induce an affective reaction. The information-focused and control conditions received the same DA without the affective content. The information-focused condition received additional instructions to induce deliberative processing.
Controlling for the experiment-wise error rate at P < 0.017, the emotion-focused and information-focused conditions had significantly higher decisional satisfaction than the control condition (P < 0.001). The emotion-focused condition did not demonstrate preference-value consistency. There were no significant differences for decisional conflict and knowledge.
Results suggest that the promotion of affective processing may hinder value-consistent decision making, while deliberative processing may enhance decisional satisfaction.
This investigation of the effect of affective and deliberative processes in DA-supported decision making has implications for the design and use of DAs. DA effectiveness may be enhanced by incorporating a simple instruction to focus on the details of the information.
决策辅助工具(DAs)是一种非指导性沟通工具,可帮助患者做出符合自身价值观的医疗保健决策。然而,大多数决策辅助工具的开发都没有明确的理论框架,导致人们对决策辅助工具如何实现预期效果缺乏了解。
基于双加工理论,研究促进情感加工与审慎加工对决策辅助工具有效性的影响。
设计、场所和参与者:148名女大学生参与了一项随机对照实验,该实验分为三种条件:情感聚焦、信息聚焦和对照。通过计划对比分析比较了不同条件下的偏好-价值一致性、知识水平、决策冲突和满意度。
干预包括两种不同的决策辅助工具和指导操作。情感聚焦组接收经过修改的带有情感内容的决策辅助工具以及诱导情感反应的指导语。信息聚焦组和对照组接收相同但没有情感内容的决策辅助工具。信息聚焦组还额外接收了诱导审慎加工的指导语。
在将实验误差率控制在P<0.017的情况下,情感聚焦组和信息聚焦组的决策满意度显著高于对照组(P<0.001)。情感聚焦组未表现出偏好-价值一致性。在决策冲突和知识水平方面没有显著差异。
结果表明,促进情感加工可能会阻碍符合价值观的决策制定,而审慎加工可能会提高决策满意度。
这项关于情感和审慎过程在决策辅助工具支持的决策制定中的作用的研究,对决策辅助工具的设计和使用具有启示意义。通过加入一条简单的关注信息细节的指导语,可能会提高决策辅助工具的有效性。